CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. 1:08-CV-0164
Regular Panel Decision

Ruggles v. WellPoint, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including named individuals Fay Ruggles, Maurice Billman, Karen Hawkins, Harriet Childress, and Nancy Coleman, initiated a collective action against Wellpoint, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to incorporate additional class action claims under California and Illinois state laws and requested approval for ten consent forms filed after the court-imposed deadline. Defendant Wellpoint opposed both motions, citing undue delay and potential prejudice. The United States Magistrate Judge granted both motions, finding no bad faith or significant undue prejudice to the defendant, and emphasized judicial economy in consolidating related state law claims and allowing the late opt-ins.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage and HourCollective ActionClass Action CertificationMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentJudicial DiscretionPrejudice AnalysisEquitable Tolling
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1997

Host Marriott Corp. v. North

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution. The denial was based on a contract providing for mutual indemnification between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of a potential Workers' Compensation defense in an underlying action. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a motion to amend the answer to assert this defense would have been untimely. It emphasized that both Federal and State practice require leave to amend pleadings to be freely given in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

indemnificationcontributionworkers' compensation lawfederal rules of civil procedurestate practiceleave to amendmotion to dismissunderlying actionmutual indemnificationuntimely defense
References
5
Case No. ADJ414029 (MON 0347065)
Regular
Mar 11, 2010

TRINA R. THOMPSON vs. HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal of her case from the assigned judge, arguing the judge erred by allowing defense witness testimony on injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and that this testimony would prejudice the judge's decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the removal petition, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The WCAB also noted the applicant failed to timely object to the defense witnesses' testimony and that the record contradicted claims of undue delay caused by the judge. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the implied request for disqualification due to untimeliness and procedural defects.

Labor Code section 5310Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAOE/COEPresumption of compensabilityLabor Code section 5402Rebuttable presumptionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3Agreed medical evaluator
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexandre v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs, current or former African-American employees of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation and Sanitation District No. 2, alleged race discrimination and civil rights violations. They moved to amend their complaint to include additional facts concerning a hangman's noose incident, racially offensive comments by co-workers and a commissioner, and discriminatory practices regarding promotions and reclassification. Defendants opposed the motion, citing untimeliness and potential prejudice. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend, reasoning that the amendment only added facts, not new causes of action, and that defendants failed to demonstrate undue prejudice or bad faith.

Race DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights ViolationsHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15Undue DelayUndue PrejudiceMonell LiabilityTitle VII
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1998

Weber v. Northberry Construction

Claimant, a surveyor, sustained two work-related knee and back injuries in 1986. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled he had a permanent partial disability and the carrier made a $5,000 overpayment. Claimant appealed, alleging prejudice from inability to cross-examine a private investigator who testified about videotaped surveillance but was unavailable for further testimony. The court found no undue prejudice given the substantial independent medical evidence from nine health care professionals, which the Board primarily relied upon. The Board's finding of permanent partial disability was affirmed, with the court noting that resolving conflicting medical testimony falls within the Board's purview if based on substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical TestimonyOverpaymentCross-ExaminationPrivate InvestigatorVideotape EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanchett v. Graphic Techniques, Inc.

Plaintiff L. Sue Hanchett was seriously injured in January 1991 while employed by James River Corporation. She and her husband filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Richard Hicks, a design engineer assigned by Graphic Techniques, Inc., claiming he removed safety guards. Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity defense and for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, plaintiffs contested the amendment due to prejudice and argued Hicks was not a special employee. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no undue prejudice and concluding that Hicks was indeed a special employee of James River, thereby making the Workers' Compensation Law the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.

special employmentWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentpleading amendmentCPLR 3025 (b)negligencepersonal injuryexclusivity defenseappellate reviewSaratoga County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilbur v. Utica Mutual Co.

A school bus driver, the petitioner, suffered injuries in 1989 and was found to have a permanent partial disability, receiving workers' compensation benefits. In 1991, the petitioner settled a third-party claim against Rapp Petroleum Corporation for $25,000 without notifying or obtaining consent from the workers' compensation carrier. After the carrier learned of the settlement in 1994, petitioner's future compensation payments were suspended, and the case was closed by the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1995, the petitioner sought nunc pro tunc approval of the settlement from the Supreme Court, which was denied due to undue delay and prejudice to the carrier. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, citing the unexplained 11-month delay in seeking approval and the carrier's demonstrated prejudice from the subsequent finding of a permanent partial disability without their participation in settlement negotiations.

Workers' CompensationSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncThird-Party ActionCarrier ConsentPrejudiceUndue DelayPermanent Partial DisabilityJudicial ApprovalAppellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,879 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational